#so i corrected this injustice by making it more generic

[maspers]

The Fan's Universal Roleplay Framework (or "An excuse for fanfic writers to use their spare d12s")

Materials

Many d12s. One per player plus one extra.

The source material, or internet access (for reference).

Setup

Decide what work(s) this story is based on.

Select a Game Master (GM). They get two d12s, Players gets 1.

Each Player selects a pre-existing character from the work(s) to play as.

GM and Players discuss what the story premise is, establish opening scene.

Play

Players describe what their characters do.

GM determines difficulty, either arbitrarily or by rolling 1-2 d12s.

Player then rolls their d12, if it's higher than difficulty, they succeed, if lower, they fail.

GM describes results and subsequent effects (Players can assist).

If a described character action is deemed by GM to be particularly thought-out and matching their canon characterization, player gets "Reward Points" (RP). Players can spend RPs to increase any of their dice rolls by 1 point per RP spent.

Players have their characters assisting each other, adding their own d12 roll to the original. If this is deemed worthy of an RP, that RP can be used by EITHER player.

Actions deemed too out-of-character get point reductions to that d12 roll AND their next one.

Repeat forever until people stop having fun.

Creator Notes: Never made an RPG before, at least not a functional one. (Who knows, maybe this one isn't even functional). I was inspired by various text-based RPs I've been in and was wondering how a fandom-centered TTRPG would work if the main goals were to 1) Tell a cool story and 2) Stay in character. It should work for pretty much any typical fanfiction scenario so there should be plenty of opportunity for variety.

Also I like d12s.

Feel free to archive this off-site. Or do whatever else you want to do with this. I can't stop you.

200 Word RPGs 2024

Each November, some people try to write a novel. Others would prefer to do as little writing as possible. For those who wish to challenge their ability to not write, we offer this alternative: producing a complete, playable roleplaying game in two hundred words or fewer.

This is the submission thread for the 2024 event, running from November 1st, 2024 through November 30th, 2024. Submission guidelines can be found in this blog's pinned post, here.

[comicaurora]

I've been reading some stuff on punitive justice, and it made something click for me that I've observed a lot online but haven't been able to put into words before.

When someone does something wrong, that's bad, and the damage it does needs to be repaired while the person needs to try to do better in future to minimize repeating harm. We learn it in preschool - say sorry, don't do it again. If they keep at it, remove them from the situation where they can do the harm until they prove they're responsible enough to go back in.

So if it turns out someone DIDN'T do anything wrong, that should be a relief! There's no damage to fix, no internal errors to correct. Less work for everybody, literally no harm done. False alarm, all good.

The thing I've observed is, lots of people want them to have done something wrong. There's almost disappointment when it turns out there's no harm done. And I think that's because of this general undercurrent of punitive justice as morally righteous and desirable: someone does something wrong, you get to punish them. Turns out they're innocent? That's disappointing. Find another reason you get to punish them, or find another bad person you get to punish. But at the core of it is that desire to punish someone. Someone you can hurt in a way that makes you a better person for hurting them.

This particular brand of almost cannibalistic pseudo-justice is super common in tumblr, one of the most ostensibly liberal spaces on the internet; I see more borderline savagery in online discourse here than in the actually toxic parts of the internet that are just openly cruel for cruelty's sake. It's always thrown me for a loop, and has frankly also hurt me, because on the rare occasions I get personally dogpiled, it only actually stings when it makes me worry that I've legitimately hurt someone. If I did something wrong, or more realistically when I inevitably do something wrong, that would make it good and right for people to give me shit about it every day until I'm dead.

The thing that clicked for me most recently was this bit in Ijeoma Oluo's Be A Revolution:

Punitive justice is specifically, uniquely appealing to people who have suffered injustices. Of course it's the Tumblr zeitgeist. Everyone here is a marginalized person failed by at least one system. Punishing someone for perceived injustice is how someone the system has deemed worthless proves their value in blood, even if the person being punished hasn't harmed you directly - even if they haven't harmed anyone. "Righteous" anger isn't about the target in these cases, it's about the inflicter. This is how much my pain is worth.

And that kind of violent validation is so alluring and so very dangerous. It seeks an outlet, wearing the justification of justice. Who's in reach? Who's an acceptable target this week? What's a good reason to use?

Is there anything they could do that would make me stop?

[soleminisanction]

Once again got a bee in my bonnet to spend a night doing obscure fandom research to make a point, so. For all those people who keep making the annoying, "Tim keeps '''stealing'' other peoples' names" comments -- have a table.

EDIT: Updated version with some mistakes corrected.

Everyone with a check mark has used that codename at some point in DC's 80+ year continuity -- Elseworlds and alternate dimensions/timelines count, adaptations (movies, video games, cartoons, etc.) don't unless they've got comic book tie-ins, and neither do in-universe dream sequences/illusions/fantasies/other narrative elements that are objectively "not real" within the boundaries of the fiction.

A purple marker indicates an element that only applies in Elseworlds or alternate timelines. Yellow is for the originator of the legacy title. Star symbol is for borderline cases/extenuating circumstances/it's open to interpretation (with some further elaboration below).

The "other" column is just there to account for people who've held lesser or non-legacy titles, like Renegade, Wingman, Arkham Knight, Drake, Redbird, Talon, Deadman, Black Bat, Orphan and Catwoman.

Point being: the people who have actually gone through the most legacy titles in this family are Dick, Babs and Jason, tied with 5 each (again, not counting "other;" if we counted those separately Dick would've had by far the most). Tim is tied with Steph AND Helena Wayne, so unless you're whining about them "stealing other peoples' names" you're just wrong, and they're all only one higher than Damian, Carrie and Bruce.

This is a legacy family that passes their codenames up and down the inheritance line. It's what they do. It's not a legitimate criticism to level at one character and not the others. Please get over it.

---

Further elaboration on some of the lesser known/niche cases:

- Bruce uses the Robin ID in Superman & Batman: Generations, as well as the pre-Crisis Detective Comics #226 story.

- In the second half of Thrillkiller ‘62, Babs cuts her hair and dons the Robin costume worn by her deceased partner Dick to get revenge on his killer; however the only name ever used for her in the series is Batgirl

- Cassandra was a member of the Robins orphan gang from Dark Knights of Steel.

- Duke was a member of the We Are Robins gang, as well as the aforementioned DKS orphan gang, and has appeared as Robin in a couple of Elseworlds, including I believe a White Knight spin-off.

- Cass was Batwoman in one of the versions of the Titans Tomorrow, as was Bette Kane, depending on changes to the timeline.

- Babs is Batwoman in the Batman ‘66 comics and in the 1980 story “The Secret Origin of Bruce (Superman) Wayne”

- Earth-3 Steph is Batwoman in Young Justice 2019.

- Helena Wayne is Batwoman in the possible future story Last Rites

- Tim is a member of the Batgirls vigilante/little league baseball team in the DC Bombshells universe, as is Cullen Row. Some call them the “Batboys” instead. I call those people cowards.

- Helena Bertinelli wore the costume that would later become Cass’s signature Batgirl look during No Man’s Land. However, she was more often referred to as “The Bat” and her Batgirl status is up to individual interpretation.

- Dick didn’t originate the Nightwing name, it started with Clark in the Silver Age.

- Steph has never been Nightwing. The panel where she appears in the costume is a Black Mercy illusion that happens only in her own mind. It’s a dream sequence.

- Barbara was Nightwing in the Smallville Season 11 comics.

- Terry was briefly Nightwing in volume 4 of Batman Beyond.

- Damian briefly became Nightwing after accidentally killing Dick in the Injustice series.

- Dick is Oracle in the “Eight Wonders of the World” version of Earth 2 (aka the Black Superman dimension)

[imagionationstation]

Today on the Mikey Is Not Abused news

Research shows that 78% of the “Poor Mikey” fanclub claims that Mikey is incapable of standing up for himself, whether that be because he fears further abuse, fears his brothers in general, suffers from intense depression, an abuse sort of conditioning, or *insert other incredulous views here* (Statistics may not be entirely accurate and should be used with caution).

Unfortunately for them, Mikey does knows how to stand up for himself and it has been shown that he can speak his mind to even the main abuser, Raphael, and walk away unscathed.

Astonishing claim, I know, but the facts prove themselves.

Mikey has brought up beliefs on several occasions, but his lack of awareness outside his own mind often disproves his own claims.

Years of leprechauns, cream cheese demons, and certainty in cupcake uprisings have worn down his brothers’ trust in his word on many different subjects. This is not his brothers ignoring him out of spite. This is merely because he has proven himself to be an unreliable source when it comes to reality.

His lack of interest in taking most battles and training sessions seriously grate on his brothers’ nerves and often lead them to doubt his prowess and abilities on the field. Mikey being the youngest and earning all of their must protect with life instincts doesn’t exactly help his case. He knowingly brings much of their wrath upon himself- with tauntings, and purposefully infuriating acts, and the constant reappearance of Dr. Prankenstein.

When Mikey doesn’t go gun-hoe or call Raph out for a whack on the head, it’s probably because he’s conscious enough to know he likely said/did something stupid, or because he purposefully did something annoying.

However, if he sees an injustice affect another by his brothers’ hand, he will be the first one to stand up and correct it.

Mikey is proven to be more likely to speak his mind when it comes to others around him getting retribution that he deems underserved.

IN FACT, a few of the only times fans actually see an aggressive argument/challenge poised to a brother is to Raphael, often in regards to his crass judgement.

Take Fourfold Trap as an example:

“I got the answer for you! Karai’s a lost cause!”

“Don’t say that, dude!”

Mikey shoves at Raph’s shoulder to make him face him and they both begin yelling/bickering/roughly gesturing. Mikey is in no way scared of how Raph will react to this and is immediate in getting physically aggressive and speaking his mind.

Not normally how someone who’s been abused all their life would act towards the main abuser, I think. Not convincing enough?

Well, The Curse of Savanti Romero is another:

In it, Renet is seen admitting to her mistake of letting Romero loose. Raph responds by immediately coming down on her for it, even though she understands and regrets her mistake.

Mikey has zero hesitations about jumping into the picture.

“You really are the worst time traveler ever! The worst!”

“Back off, bro! She needs our help!”

Psychology of most abusers would not point to this kind of situation going well. If this were the case- in no universe would Raphael have relented under his brother’s glare and stepped away, especially not after being shoved and yelled at in front of someone outside the family. That would be seen as a calling for punishment.

Moving away would be letting the abused assert dominance and think that they’ve gotten away with a win.

If this were really an abusive relationship, then Raphael would have had a far more violent reaction to his youngest brother butting in.

Instead, he growled, glared, and then relented. He could tell this was not an issue that could be further challenged. Mikey was standing his ground, intensely meeting his glare, and so Raph stepped away.

Now, have there been times where Mikey felt like he was left out or being ignored and that made him feel insecure?

Yes. Absolutely. Mikey Gets Shellacne is a prime example.

But, have the abusers, his older brothers, been made to share similar feelings of being unable to rely on their brothers at one time or another? Perhaps due to his direct or indirect actions? Why, yes.

Because, as hard as it is to believe, every person in that family has made mistakes when dealing with another family member. Relationships are hard. Not one person, or mutant, is perfect, and facing or accepting insecurities is always a fact of growing up.

Is this to say Mikey never stands up for himself?

No. Not even close.

Is it ever portrayed as something big and dramatic as a focal point of an episode? No. Because it doesn’t need to be.

If Mikey holding onto resentment and depression from how his brother abuse him was meant to be part of his character, it would have been a plot point in the episode where they’re literally in his brain. There would have been the slightest hint of something going on somewhere in that chaotic realm.

Instead, Mikey’s brain welcomed all of his brother with open arms.

And the true, inner Mikey runs ecstatically toward his brothers and into Leo’s open arms for snuggles, no more scared of his brothers inside his mind than outside of it.

The only time that he has thoughts of “my brothers are so mean to me I should run away” is the episode The Croaking, where he takes accountability and has the realization that his brothers aren’t the jerks that he thought they were when he ran off…

“Dude. Your brothers sound awesome.”

“Yeah. They are… Even after I trashed the house.”

Mikey doesn’t often react violently to his brother’s teasing because there’s not a reason too. He understands that his brother’s pick on him, but in reality, he picks on them too. It’s not a big enough deal to point out unless an evil planet is letting Angry Mikey consume all of his thoughts and then everything is terrible.

Mikey can stand up for himself. Mikey will always stand up for others.

And that brings this article to an end. Subscribe for more!

Next time, we’ll discuss why Parasitica May or May Not have a worse reputation than it truly deserves. Cowbunga!

[literaryvein-reblogs]

more "troublesome" words

adverse, averse

Averse - reluctant or disinclined (think of aversion)

Adverse - hostile and antagonistic (think of adversary)

allay, alleviate, assuage, relieve

Alleviate - should suggest giving temporary relief without removing the underlying cause of a problem. It is close in meaning to ease, a fact obviously unknown to the writer of this sentence: “It will ease the transit squeeze, but will not alleviate it” (Chicago Tribune).

Allay and assuage - both mean to put to rest or to pacify and are most often applied to fears

Relieve - the more general term and covers all these meanings

ambiguous, equivocal

Both mean vague and open to more than one interpretation.

But whereas an ambiguous statement may be vague by accident or by intent,

an equivocal one is calculatedly unclear.

amid, among

Among - applies to things that can be separated and counted, amid to things that cannot.

Rescuers might search among survivors but amid wreckage.

amoral, immoral

Amoral - describes matters in which questions of morality do not arise or are disregarded;

immoral - applies to things that are evil.

antecedence, antecedents

Antecedence - means precedence;

antecedents - ancestors or other things that have gone before.

antennae, antennas

Either is correct as the plural of antenna,

but generally antennae - preferred for living organisms (“a beetle’s antennae”)

and antennas - for manmade objects (“radio antennas made possible the discovery of pulsars”).

anybody, anyone, anything, anyway, anywhere

Anything and anywhere - always one word.

The others are one word except when the emphasis is on the second element (e.g., “He received three job offers, but any one would have suited him”).

Anybody and anyone - singular and should be followed by singular pronouns and verbs.

A common fault is seen here:

“Anyone can relax, so long as they don’t care whether they or anyone else ever actually gets anything done” (Observer).

So long as they gets anything done?

The problem, clearly, is that a plural pronoun (they) is being attached to a singular verb (gets).

Such constructions may in fact be fully defensible, at least some of the time, though you should at least know why you are breaking a rule when you break it.

avenge, revenge

Generally, avenge - indicates the settling of a score or the redressing of an injustice. It is more dispassionate than

revenge - indicates retaliation taken largely for the sake of personal satisfaction.

a while, awhile

To write “for awhile” is wrong because the idea of for is implicit in awhile.

Write either: “I will stay here for a while” (two words) or “I will stay here awhile” (one word).

awoke, awaked, awakened

Two common problems are worth noting:

Awoken, though much used, is generally considered not standard. Thus this sentence from an Agatha Christie novel (cited by Partridge) is wrong: “I was awoken by that rather flashy young woman.” Make it awakened.

As a past participle, awaked is preferable to awoke. Thus, “He had awaked at midnight” and not “He had awoke at midnight.” But if ever in doubt about the past tense, you will never be wrong if you use awakened.

Source More: On Grammar & Vocabulary

[moonsaver]

Good day moon! Okay I normally don't do asks when it comes to yandere cause it's not my usual thing but seeing the last post you made of Yan!Sunday and his darling, that one where he just desperately wants to have that normalcy in their relationship but couldn't ever have it because of what he's done, made me think of something rather angsty; like how the darling's backlashes against his affections would probably go turn for the worst as time passes on, they don't hate him in a sense because he's really trying hard to not make them hate him and they can see that his love is real (just really fucked up) but that deep urge to hurt the person who took their freedom away is still there, it wouldn't just go away just because he loves them so much that he wouldn't dare to break them. Oh that satisfaction on seeing Sunday looking so hurt after yelling at him, they know it doesn't make them any better than him but at that point, what else is there for them to lose? Maybe in hurting him so subtly, they may find some pity in themselves for him to actually give him some semblance of love but until then, all Sunday ever receives from them are either silent treatment or backlash

Such relationship could only thrive in the worst way possible and maybe Sunday knows that but even then, he still holds out that little (delusional) hope that maybe his darling will still love him someday

Sorry for the rant, it's just that I feel for Sunday but his method will never work and it'll just deeply hurt him and his darling in the end asgfjgsfg also if it's alright, I'd request this but I'll leave it to you with how you write it, be it an imagine or anything else since I'm fine with it!

- Elys

Hello Elys! Im so sorry it took a long time for me to get to your request lol, tons of things got in the way but I remembered this request for a while.

In any case, I feel you've summed it up quite well!

Sunday isn't harsh or as brutal as I imagine him. Unlike my [i have to self advertise here, sorry HAHA] soft yan!blade, Sunday most likely wouldn't even need a bit of working around to be a softer yandere.

He's so loving, it's painful. His love is like despaired poetry for a lover who is still alive, just further than their reach. I imagine his love to be very tender, even as a yandere, if he doesn't become even softer.

And it's hard to convince him he's wrong – mainly because he already knows. But rather that's a bit distorted in his view; instead he thinks it's a wrongdoing against your nature as someone who wants to be free, but correct in the context of the situation rather than actually understanding it is absolutely wrong in general. And he doesn't budge. He's stubborn, almost infuriatingly. And instead of getting angry, I imagine he rather looks disappointed or disgruntled, which somehow does more damage/strikes more fear than anger.

And it's still heartbreaking; frustratingly for both of you, not just yourself.

You lash out, you scream, cry, wail, argue, relentlessly push and resist against him. it's your only way of getting back at him, you're sure as hell you're going to strike the hardest that way. And you relish the hurt you see in the eyes of your captor, but something more sympathetic tugs at you when you see his lovingly sad eyes. It's this cacophony of guilt, frustration, anger, and utter despair at the loss of your freedom. Sunday feels all of it, aswell, and you want to be relieved that he does – if it weren't for the fact he still wasn't letting you go.

He continually withholds your freedom from you. That single injustice to you is enough to weather your patience over time – your anger only burns hotter and hotter, pushing away any semblance of sympathy or reasoning, and it only hurts Sunday more, until you realise what you're doing, and quietly give in to sooth him for the time being. Just a little. Until that little injustice starts bothering you again. It's a toxic cycle.

And it hurts even more when Sunday tries to find normalcy in your relationship; he's trying so hard to be your lover, to hold you gently and bathe you with care, to dry you off and still love you after seeing you bare. He wants to come home and see you smile, be happy, elated that he's there, just as he feels when he sees you. But that's not what happens. His delusions and flimsy expectations are shattered the moment he steps into the dimly lit room, your form refusing to even look at him. The silence is strangely stronger than his hopes.

Anyways, that's all i can think of at the moment. I love angst yandere sunday time.

[the-modern-typewriter]

Hey! Asking for some writing advice here.

How does one write a villain exactly. In a very simple world with no superpowers and stuff how do you give them motivation. How do you make them slowly descent into villainy. Somehow when the villain actually thinks they're doing the right thing until the very end?

Thx love

There are a few different questions here that I'm going to try to to unpick.

I'll start with a brief overview of the connections between protagonist + antagonist, just because recognising them can be really useful in shaping your own ideas. Then I'll dive into motivation. So.

Antagonist + Protagonist = CONFLICT

If you know your protagonist well, then you have all the ingredients you need to write a great villain/antagonist for them too. Here is why.

Your villain/antagonist is, at the most basic fundamental starting point, something that is between your protagonist and what the protagonist wants/needs. As a very simple example, if your protagonist wants to make sure that everyone is free, then your antagonist is going to in some way be involved with making sure they are not free. Once you know what your antagonist needs to do in a story, then it's a lot easier to pose the question to yourself of 'okay, why would someone do that?'

Villains often reflect an opposite or warped view of the values and motivations that your protagonist has. They mirror or foil your main character. So, your antagonist's motivation will often be either opposite to the protagonist (e.g, your protagonist is motivated by selflessness, so your antagonist is motivated by selfishness in some way) or they will be the same motivation or value gone twisted (e.g. we both have people we love who we would do anything to protect...it's the villains way of acting on that motivation that makes them the villain, not the motivation.)

Of course, you can not have your antagonist + protagonist connected in this way. This is often the case if the source of conflict in your story is not another actual character or if you have a more generic villain. Lots of great stories have generic villains. It typically just means the villain is not a focus. It might be, like, about the friendships made in the journey instead.

Motivations:

I find it helpful to think of all my characters having two motivations.

The external story-specific motivation. This is whatever the antagonist is trying to achieve in your particular story and where things like genre and superpowers etc come into play.

The internal motivation that is more universal. The internal motivation is, while still specific to the character, the driving emotions and values. With a villain, that is often hatred or fear or lust for power because they're villains, but as noted earlier it can be a twisted form of love, or a strong sense of an injustice committed against them. This shapes the external motivation (e.g. 'lust for power = I want the throne, 'fear' = I'm going to kill or belittle or control what scares me so I don't have to feel scared anymore', justice might equal revenge or gaining power to ensure that a wrong is corrected. ) It could also be a bias or a prejudice that they're raised on driving them, that they genuinely believe in. Lots of possibilities!

I think this is true of people as well. We have our foundational core beliefs and desires (to be loved, to succeed, to be accepted whatever) and then we have the things we try to get in the real world to meet those needs (whether they really will or not).

Either way, it's the second one that comes into play with the slow descent into villainy and the villain thinking that they're doing the right thing until the end. Because, initially, their heart genuinely is not in a villainous place. They may actually be doing the right thing at the start. And then bad things happen. They are changed by the journey. They are a protagonist gone tragic.

We all experience emotions that can drive us to behave poorly; the desire for revenge or recognition, to ensure that the people we care about are safe, to get money so that we can provide for ourselves and others etc. None of us are without prejudice or privilege. Those things do not make you a villain, but they can be an excellent starting place for one.

Think about times when you've messed up. A villain is often an exaggerated version of that. You start pushing your own boundaries because there is something you really want/need and, depending on how far you push that...do you feel like you can still go back? Or do you feel like you might as well finish it after everything. At what point do you breathe for air, look up at what you've done, and go shit.

That's the villain who realises way too late that they're the villain.

Final note: I've been using antagonist and villain pretty interchangeably here...but they have slightly different connotations. Your antagonist does not have to be a villain to be effective. They just have to be an obstacle to the protagonist. E.g. if two people are going for the same dream job or trying to win a competition, the other competitors are antagonists to a certain extent, but that doesn't mean they're villainous or bad people. Whether you have an outright villain will depend on your story.

I hope this helps!

Some going further questions to take with you.

Is your villain trying to stop your protagonist from reaching their goal? Or is your protagonist trying to stop the antagonist from reaching their goal?

How does the villain's external goal in the story reflect the inner need? Note. They are aware of their external goal. Most people are not aware of the inner goal in the same way.

Do you know what you want your stories themes to be? (This doesn't have to be complicated and it's fine if you don't, that's what editing is for). Your protagonist and antagonist often weigh in on these themes. For example, your antagonist might be a path the protagonist could have gone down, if they made a different choice or something happened differently in their past.

[sugar-grigri]

Correction: Fake! CSM is the God Devil

WAIT WAIT WAIT and if, going back over this analysis, Fake!CSM or even the famous demon that Yuko and the others had contracted with wasn't an identity or memory demon

This entity would be the demon representing the fear of God? I CAN EXPLAIN! That would explain why this demon has the appearance of Chainsaw Man

As Angel explained, Chainsaw Man is the being who draws the line between death and birth for demons, the sound of chainsaws being what they hear when they are born or die.

As a result, Chainsaw Man had a natural superiority over the other demons, to the point of being feared as a divine power.

Whether it's Beam, who considered himself a follower of Chainsaw Man, or Makima, who was fascinated by him, it's an abnormal relationship between demons and CSM, tinged with veneration and fear.

Chainsaw Man is a divine figure who has also become enshrined among mortals, who see him as a means of fighting against their injustices.

You see where I'm going with this, the demon resulting from the fear of God has ended up taking on the appearance of the saviour and punisher projected by both demons and humans.

This would explain why this demon didn't lie when he called himself a demon of justice, just as it explains Barem's reaction, whom he sees as his saviour, just as it explains Fake!CSM's appearance, and finally, it explains the biblical references made by the impostor.

Which confirms my theory that Fake!CSM is NOT an enemy of Denji - quite the opposite, in fact. He wants the real Chainsaw Man to act, to be feared by demons and worshipped by humans, to once again reinforce the divine aspect of his image.

Denji is the source of Fake!CSM's power, which is why Fami has built a church around his figure to further reinforce this aspect, and why the impostor prefers to speak in Denji's name to make a more religious statement than the real CSM, who couldn't care less about such considerations.

If we were to get to know Denji as he really is, the very nature of a simple teenager would destroy his reputation for being invincible.

That's why Barem and Fami want Denji to join their cause anyway, because Chainsaw Man has to do exactly what they think will strengthen his reputation as a divine being.

If Nostradamus's apocalypse is fulfilled, people will not only fear divine wrath, they'll start praying to Chainsaw Man too!

Fake!CSM is Fami's champion for countering the apocalypse, and she's only interested in making it as powerful as possible.

This also explains why the public hunters want to paralyse Chainsaw Man and prevent him from showing his face, to avoid confirming this growing reputation and veneration. I repeat, when Yoshida said those words it wasn't to help Denji but to express the will of the hunters in any case. The fact that one of them said that it would be simpler if he were a weapon doesn't detract from this. It's simpler for CSM to be a unanimous being who's easy to hide and control than an unpredictable teenager.

The public hunters don't know exactly what's going on, as evidenced by their natural suspicion of Fami, whom they thought was behind this apocalypse, or by their response to the church's intentions in the last chapter. However, they do have their doubts about Fami, the knight of the apocalypse, whom they must know to be the founder of the church, and since the church relies on Chainsaw Man as the guardian of public order, it was safer for him to stop acting and not to go along with the church.

Chainsaw Man is the symbol of the demons' death, which erases their names and dictates their existence, so here's a theory on what will trigger the apocalypse...

It won't be caused by one demon in particular, but by a general revolt of demons such as has already taken place in the underworld to put an end to Chainsaw Man, to this supreme demon.

When the natural death of demons no longer exists, of course, this will mean the victory of demons over humans, as foretold by prophecy.

If this war breaks out, this explains why Fami Yoru believes that the demon of war is the one who will be able to counter this attack of demons.

Let's go back to this prophecy :

The simplest

Mars as god of war is none other than Yoru

But you know what's interesting is that according to all the thinkers analysing Nostradamus, what Nostradamus was actually predicting was not an apocalypse but an eclipse of the sun.

So this allows us to identify the other protagonists: the great King of Terror is none other than the moon that hides the sun, which will soon reappear.

The Great King of Angoulmois is none other than Denji

Overshadowed by Fake!CSM

Now you know why it only works before the sun comes out.

[tothepointofinsanity]

Does Sayaka hate Homura?

The short answer is that Sayaka certainly does not like Homura, or at least gets along shabbily with her.

A lot of written posts have analysed Sayaka and Homura’s relationship better than I ever can. Even here I will trip and stumble for articulation. To put simply, it’s Complicated. On a certain level, it’s easy to recognise that Sayaka has hatred for Homura who got her own way, which jeopardised a part of the Law of Cycles. Sayaka hates injustice and selfishness in general, and to embrace a title of a devil must mean Homura is the most selfish of all.

There are a lot of posts that compare both of them - Sayaka and Homura are characters entwined in the vein whereby both of them want to protect people. Their self-hatred is also palpable all the same for their failures. In their heads, they evaluate their experiences with pain and suffering, whereby one comes to the conclusion that it can be for the greater good (Sayaka) while the other wants to stop the idea of piling the Greater Good onto a singular person, in which that person happens to be Madoka. Sayaka views Madoka’s godhood as sacred and necessary, while Homura dreads it as an inappropriate, eternal burden for her. More so with the incubators involved - it places Madoka in a new, potential state of danger, which was what Homura had always wanted to avoid.

Sayaka hates that Homura is always off to make decisions quietly by herself, which is a reflection of how Sayaka herself used to act. Their personalities clash because of their methods. Nothing separates people more than different ideologies. One wants to uphold status quo, while the other wants to grasp and change fate itself for someone she loves, presenting opposition to these ideals. But Madoka is tied to the achievement of either of these desires, so when it comes to this, it’s hard for Sayaka to not immediately become suspicious and hostile to Homura given the former does not truly understand the latter’s intentions.

I do not think Sayaka hates Homura enough to want to hurt or actually kill her, though this could stand corrected in the new movie. After all, my analyses are always superficial and shallow, but I do quite like their relationship/pairing. Thank you for the ask.

[tanadrin]

So when's the historical cutoff of a "right to return" in your estimation? Because you're clearly not out here claiming that the Palestinians are a fake people with no entitlement to a state.

Palestinian identity is no more or less fake than any other national or ethnic identity, but all such identities are indeed kinda fake.

Genocide and ethnic cleansing are wrong because they involve actual material harm to actual human beings. It's wrong to murder and dehumanize people! It's wrong to expel them from the places they live and the land they rely on to make a living. To the extent that such injustices can be corrected years later, they should be.

After the first Roman-Jewish war, the Romans razed Jerusalem and built a new city on the site, in which Jews were forbidden to live. This was wrong; but the Roman state lost control of Jerusalem in the 7th century, and its last successors finally ceased to exist around five hundred years ago. The state that succeeded it in that region also hasn't existed in centuries, and it's not possible to make specific property claims for restitution in a city that no longer exists (most of the existing old city of Jerusalem is, I believe, medieval in origin). Therefore, outside of a general principle like "borders are stupid, and people should be able to live, work, and buy land wherever they want," this is a historic injustice it is, unfortunately, not possible to correct.

The Nakba happened in 1948, people displaced in the Nakba are still alive, that property still exists, and even where people displaced in the Nakba have died, their heirs are quite easy to identify. A lot of that property is still controlled by the Israeli state. That would be a historic injustice it is comparatively easy to correct.

Nobody is "entitled to a state." States can be instrumentally useful sometimes. But the idea every nation should have a state, which corresponds to a historic national territory, and exercises exclusive jurisdiction, whose primary goal is the protection of that nation and whose interests coincide with it 100% is both a lie about how states work (states are generally run by political elites, and their interests do not correspond one to one to the interests of their people; democracy as a tool can help reduce that gap, but it's not perfect), and simply impossible. There is no tract of inhabited land on this Earth not claimed by multiple nations. Why would there be? Nations are simply imagined communities. The idea of a national territory is part of that imagination. You could sift every inch of soil in France down to the bedrock and you will find no inherent Frenchness therein. Ditto every other nation on this planet.

Nationalism is a mental illness that in its advanced stages makes it impossible to see human beings and human suffering for what they are. It is the anticolonialism of fools. It is a useful lie for state elites, since it helps provide legitimacy for their governments. Sometimes it's useful to talk about people in aggregate as a shorthand, but we shouldn't make the mistake of taking that abstraction for a first-order reality. States do not have moral rights and are not moral patients. People have moral rights.

[bullet-prooflove]

While I’m thinking about it:

First meeting with Dean Archer

Tagging: @kmc1989 @chicagotrio101 @mysticcandymiracle @sweetdaytimedreams

Oh how I have missed writing for Dean!

Dean’s always had a general awareness of you. He’s forced to attend morbidity and mortality meetings when one of the attendings screws up, you’re usually there explaining cause of death before the committee picks over the procedure and makes recommendations for educational purposes.

Normally these meetings are long and arduous, taking up large chunks of Dean’s day but since you’ve taken up residence as the Medical Examiner he’s oddly found himself looking forward to them especially after the last one when you took the seat beside him after your presentation. You’d had a dry throat after from talking for so long so he’d offered you his water bottle and you’d been so grateful, whispering the word thank you during summarisations.

Now he on purposely takes a seat at the front, leaving the space beside him vacant because he knows that’s where you like to sit.

You look different today, instead of your usual white lab coat, you’re wearing a pretty sky blue dress with a black blazer over the top and low heels, your hair is pulled back into a half up, half down style. Dean can’t take his eyes off you, you’re absolutely stunning.

“What’s with the change of wardrobe?” He whispers when you sit down alongside him.

“Oh I have to testify in court after this.” You tell him, your hands smoothing over your dress. “Why is it too much?”

“No, no, you look beautiful, I mean professional, very professional.” He corrects himself, glad the two of you are sitting in the dark so you don’t see the blush creeping up his cheeks.

“It’s always a bit of tightrope, dressing for court. You don’t want to look too professional or they’ll think you’re a bitch and you don’t want to look too soft otherwise they won’t take you seriously.” You say quietly as you clasp your hands together in your lap.

“I’m guessing that’s the burden of being a woman in that environment.” He says as he toys with the pen he’s been taking notes with. “They’re judging you just as much as their judging the criminal they’re meant to be putting away.”

“How every astute of you Doctor Archer.” You remark, the left side of your mouth quirking up into a smile and damn it if Dean’s heart doesn’t thud just a little faster in his chest.

When he looks back Dean realises that’s the moment he began to fall in love with you, it started with that smile.

“We should get coffee sometime.” He says, tapping his pen lightly against the paper in front of him. “Talk about the world’s injustices some more.”

“I’d like that.” You tell him before taking the pen from his hand and jotting something down onto his notepad. “My number, give me a call when you’re free.”

Love Dean? Don’t miss any of his stories by joining the taglist here.

Interested in supporting me? Join my Patreon for Bonus Content!

Like My Work? - Why Not Buy Me A Coffee

[melljam]

it’s unhinged long post time again! and this one’s about gitae kim >:)

so its assumed that gitae holds some form of resentment over his absent father, gap … (since he did vaguely murder him with james after all)

… but there seems to be some subtle hints that gitae might have also idolized gapryong kim

-> first up: gitae’s pipe being engraved with gapryong kim’s name in chinese (金甲龍) 「link to my post that goes more in-depth about gap’s chinese name」

as i mentioned in the linked post, it seems like that smoking pipe belonged to gap in the past and gitae somehow got ahold of it

so why would gitae keep a piece of memorabilia that belonged to his absent father if he only held resentment for the man? it might have some sentimental value for him, especially since he chose to bring it back to korea with him.

perhaps the motive behind gitae’s possession and usage of gap’s pipe could be comparable to jake deciding to don gap’s gloves

the two of them both hold resentment for gap as a father, while also selectively admiring and emulating aspects of him as a gangsters

-> secondly, on the topic of emulating gap …

jake seems to unwillingly (or subconsciously) follow in his father’s footsteps through his passion for protecting people (which is the symbolic reason he wears gap’s gloves), but he also inherited gap’s moral compass. jake dislikes unfairness or ‘cheating’, just like how gap could never “ignore any kind of injustice.”

also the way that gap is mentioned to never be able to pass by someone in need, while jake constantly gets involved in other people’s business for the sake of helping them (showing up to save victims in 3a and his entire dynamic with xiaolung lol)

by all means, minseon was correct (ofc she is <3), and jake takes after gapryong kim’s ‘good side’

and in the same vein, following in minseon’s words, gitae takes after gapryong kim’s evil side.

he’s selfish, he’s power-hungry, and he has the raw strength to do (or get) what he wants

all of which are also traits belonging to gap, shown through his cheating, his (failed) political campaign, and his strength making him the ‘legend of the pre-generation’

no one truly aspires to be any of the first two traits listed, but what about the third?

to be a legend, in terms of strength (which is very, very important as a gangism lookism character whose ability to succeed is correlated in their ability to fight …)

wouldn’t that certainly be appealing to a selfish, power-hungry man?

and it seems that it indeed was very appealing to gitae, since jinyoung alludes to gap failing to mimic gap’s fighting style in the past

-> “no matter how hard you try, you’ll never be gapryong kim.”

perhaps this was just a one-off comment about gitae attempting to mimic gap’s fists, but it could be indicative of another facet of gitae’s admiration for his father

gitae might have admired the idea of his father being gapryong kim, korea’s strongest gangster, to the point of idolization (which sounds a lot like a certain someone samuel hahah … )

if so, then he might have become obsessed with following in his father’s footsteps and attaining power as a gangster, especially if he lived in poverty as an abandoned child (just like samuel)

perhaps, in a similar manner to samuel, gitae might have grown up viewing himself as needing to be worthy of being gapryong kim’s son, needing to live up to his father’s name.

but is ptj really going to rehash the same backstory for gitae? there’s a possibility, but ultimately, i don’t think so. gitae seems like he’s driven by something different to samuel, something a little less insecure hahah :)

gitae may have found himself obsessed over another aspect of gapryong kim, something distinct from the validation that samuel craved, something like:

-> the identity of gapryong kim

the legend of the pre-generation, korea’s strongest gangster, an all-around powerful man

someone to admire, someone to idolize (only for these guys that is, jake is right in hating gap lol)

what gitae wanted was to be ‘gapryong kim’.

maybe not in a literal sense, but rather to have the power as a gangster that gap held during his heyday, to be a legend in his own right

gitae wanted to lead the life of glory that gapryong kim did, but might have felt ultimately limited by only being an illegitimate son of his

admiration, idolization, and obsession

gitae could have been obsessed with everything that gapryong kim represented, and the tortuously resentful ache of being unable to claim legitimacy to gapryong kim’s name might have driven gitae to commit his ‘ultimate sin’

perhaps gitae figured that the only way to ‘get what he wanted’ out of his life as an unwanted son was to murder his father and idol, gapryong kim, and thus allow himself to create his own legacy, one that eerily mirrors that of his deceased father, gapryong kim

-> additionally, as stated by minseon, gitae went to mexico because he ‘got what he wanted’

it’s very interesting that gitae went to mexico (since lookism takes place in south korea lol), and i think the reason that gitae decided to start a gang in mexico is an extension of his character motivation of power

gitae might have wanted to leave south korea because he was unable to attain the power that he wanted there, to build a legacy separate from gapryong kim’s, but very similar in nature

immediately after gapryong kim thwarted the ‘great threat’ that south korea faced in the past, he went into politics because he realized that was the only way for him to gain true power in korea

gitae didn’t want to follow in the path of the disgraceful politician gapryong kim, but rather the powerful gang leader gapryong kim

in mexico, the magnitude of the crimes, the underground businesses, and the authority that gangs have all fit someone like gitae better, someone who craves greater power and control

-> and to tie it back to the beginning of this post, gitae’s bitter obsession with gapryong kim might be why he keeps his pipe, or why he values that coat so much (since it likely belonged to gapryong in the past)

it’s a little morbid, especially if gitae gained access to gapryong kim’s belongings during or as a result of his murder, but gitae seems to cherish his father in his very own, twisted way

(gitae’s line about the coat being worth a life takes on a whole new meaning if he took it after murdering gap lol)

also, is it just a coincidence that gitae is currently dressed in a similar fashion to gap in his prime?

slicked back hair, black pants, a red shirt, and a black coat (possibly the same coat?)

anyway, thanks for reading my insufferable ramblings !!!

very excited to see what ptj has in store for gitae’s character now that he’s finally back :3

[twst-hottest-takes]

I recently read your post about the Halloween event, and I realized that Jack Howl doesn't have many SSR cards. I tried to think of a reason why, like maybe he's hard to dress up for an SSR card, or his muscles are hard to draw. Though that doesn't seem to be a problem with his SR or R cards.

So I feel like the problem is the game just doesn't really know Jack, so they don't know what to do with him. Which to be honest I feel like they do for Deuce. To twst Jack only wants to work out. And Deuce is always just trying to be an honor student to twst.

To focus more on Jack for a bit, I completely forgot he was even in the Stitch event because of how little they paid attention to him. I wish they would do more with their characters.

Careful, Anon, you could be flying too close to the sun there.

Do you really want to know why?

WARNING: We are about to tread into waters that I am dangerously invested in, so forgive me, but you may get a response a lot longer than you might have been expecting. I love Jack Howl and I refuse to keep my mouth shut about the constant injustices done to this character. I can get as heated about Jack as I do about Vil, but for the opposite reasons. While Vil is an awful character that gets blatant favoritism, Jack is awesome and gets treated incredibly poorly. The current Culinary Crucible is proof enough of that, so expect to see a decently lengthed post about that by the end of the event.

You're correct that his body type doesn't affect how difficult or hard it is for art to be made of him, but it is one of the reasons why he's so ill favored by the developers and the fans. I guess I'll put a bit of disclaimer here--

WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY IS PURELY CONJECTURE AND ONLY AN EDUCATED GUESS AT BEST! (I have just convinced myself that it is fact at this point, so there's going to be a lot of conviction behind this next statements.)

Anon suggests that the game doesn't know what to do with Jack, AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T! Jack is a placeholder of a character. Jack was invented because Yana wanted to make a buff wolf-guy to add to the animal-man dorm. Jack exists purely to act as the major assist character to the MC between Books 2 and 3 of the story. Jack is so much of an afterthought of a character that whatever Disney inspiration he was "twisted" from HAS NEVER BEEN CONFIRMED! I am willing to bet there isn't one! The best guess is that he's a reference to a HALF-WOLF from an era of LIVE ACTION book adaptations by Disney. I DESPISE THE WHITE FANG THEORY! There are a dozen wolves in animated Disney films and shorts throughout the studio's history, including a generic "BIG BAD WOLF" but we will never actually know.

The game doesn't do anything with Jack because THEY DON'T WANT TO! Jack has a narrow role and is left to the side as much as possible because no thought went into him, and there are so many other characters that the developers are okay with just ignoring him and trying to work around him so they can do their best with the characters that actually matter to the story instead of trying to actually develop him and give him any kind of depth. They don't want you to take Jack seriously, so they treat him as a joke whenever possible. They do the bare minimum to say they haven't completely forgotten about him, but don't even want to give him meaningful interactions with the MC despite being a part of the Freshman class that SHOULD BY ALL MEANS BE FORMING A FRIEND GROUP AROUND THEM!

Jack is intentionally designed to not be popular. He's not a fair-skinned-pretty-skinny-bishie-boy, so the core audience doesn't find him as attractive as most of the other characters. A big part of his personality even focuses on honing his strength, and the story goes out of its way to focus on that as much as possible despite him having other fun character traits. The developers don't care to let anyone see beyond that, so the superficial audience doesn't care if he doesn't actually have a character to explore or not. ANY AND ALL NEGLECT OF JACK HOWL IS 100% INTENTIONAL ON THE WRITERS' PARTS AND I AM CONSTANTLY FUMING OVER IT!

This is why I have been saying the JACK needs to have the dream card in the next Book 7 Story Update. Jack needs more time to shine. The parts of the story that he was a part of were short and poorly written. He needs to be given a chance to really be the center of attention again WITHOUT BEING MADE INTO A JOKE! But that is probably just wishful thinking. (The blog owner signs dramatically.)

Okay, that's my thesis on why Jack suffers so much as a character. It's not his fault, it's just that almost literally no one cares to do better by him all these years, and the game has gone to no efforts to prove otherwise. I am not done. Much like the essay on Vil, this is only the start, but you can expect to see more of it as soon as I have finished reading the Culinary Crucible Vignettes from this round. Until then. . .

Thank you for the ask!

(I am so sorry if this is more than you asked for, anon. I let myself get set off. I love Jack so much. I hate that he's just left in the dust all the time. Deuce is treated much better by comparison, so also apologies for not touching on that element of your ask!)

[morisonus]

This is probably a cold take, but when it comes to Transformers I tend to prefer fanon over canon, mainly with how they deal with societal issues. Including the war.

I understand the franchise is innately made for children, or at most teenagers, so many topics need to be watered down for the sake of clarity and understanding. (I know IDW and other continuity’s are an exception to this, but I’m mainly talking about cartoons and the more widely known about media) War isn’t black and white, that’s a given and something everyone should know and consider. This is a very simplified generalization of my opinions, and it very much varies depending on the context, but when a conflict escalates to a war, more often than not, both sides have their reasoning, and both sides commit immoral acts for the sake of their cause. Transformers is no exception. My favorite backstory’s of the war is Megatron, a bottom class worker turned revolutionary fighting for equality in an unfair system, and Optimus, a middle class worker slowly becoming aware of the injustices in his society, wishing to do something and make a difference. When you start the characters as that, it’s obvious that they are both fighting for a common and righteous cause. Their paths are often split when it comes to methods, and what their end goal is. While they both fight for a similar purpose, their experiences greatly affect how they see their would and laws, and how they need to be changed. Megatron is from the lowest of the low, where violence and abuse is commonplace towards those deemed lower than others. Optimus comes from a world of comparative privilege, able to choose wha the does in his free time, how he associates with, and has power over his own life. Of course Megatron feels that a more radical and total change is necessary when the system in place has killed and mistreated him and countless of his peers. Yes, Optimus can see why the system is wrong and a general idea of what needs to be changed, but seeing it is different from living it. Whether that is a detriment or positive depends on how your mindset is molded by it.

This post has just devolved into a brain dump of all the thoughts in my brain. I don’t even know what the original purpose pf writing this was. If I got something wrong, or you have differing opinions, please share and or correct me because I am more than willing to listen and learn. This is simply my two cents on what I know and how I see it.

[aleksiej]

random thought regarding ares in epic the musical

especially the moment when he says "really, athena? these old tricks?", but the entirety of his appearance will be talked about

technically, it's still a part of aphrodite's part, because ares comes in before his announcement by the choir

the phrase is a response to athena's plea for aphrodite to change her mind, the plea itself is very heartfelt

is seems like athena tries to appeal to aphrodite's emotions and soften her stance on odysseus's case

then, ares comes in with a rebuttal

some animatic artists have depicted his entrance as being in order to protect aphrodite and to not allow athena to shaken aphrodite's conviction

which i believe to be correct. ares believes in aphrodite and her opinion on things, which is coincidentally the same (fuck odysseus) but for different reasons that are all her own

back to "these old tricks"

ares and athena are both gods of war, although ares is more of the violence and bloodshed, while athena is more strategy and calculated movements

both are war in their very beings, but one (ares) is specifically motivated to bring as many people to their doom as possible, while athena just does not consider the loss of life, just the best strategy for accomplishing a goal

ergo, one could say athena's way of "doing war" could be viewed as softer and weaker by a being like ares, who's goal is to cause pain and death in as large quantities as possible

athena's plea of emotion is, in ares's eyes, a trick, meant to make aphrodite question herself and her conviction, a strategy to win

(which it is, to be clear)

to end it all, let's look at ares's part really quick

he accuses odysseus of not fighting scylla, of deceiving troy (which he favored in the trojan war), he calls him a coward

in the general mythos, or at least one i am familiar with most, ares is a god of war without rules, he values injustice in the same way athena values justice, and that is the main difference between the two

in epic, ares seems to have a code of honor, so to speak

he deems the trojan horse cowardly, he speaks as if he expected odysseus to fight scylla and die doing so, rather than sacrifice his man and make sure the others survive

ares in epic believes, it seems, in fighting a losing battle in name of dying with glory, rather than taking a "cowardly" way out using a more advanced strategy or sacrificing a part of a whole (like six crewmen)

what is most interesting to me, besides the different interpretation of ares than the one i'm used to, is his mention of telemachus

"pathetic and weak like his son" were his exact words

we know from "we'll be fine" that telemachus has never been in a fight before "little wolf", and with the suitors in the palace and much stronger than him, it's not a surprise.

ares's words seem to, again, reflect his "better die fighting for what is right than live in shame" mentality. he sees the suitors in ithaca and a prince that's doing nothing, rather than fight and kill (or more possibly die) to protect his land and more importantly, his mother

the influence of aphrodite shows up here again, as she did speak up for odysseus's mother, and now ares scolds telemachus (long-distance, of course) for failing his own mother

anyway, that's it for ares, he is my favorite and a little (lot) fucked up lol

[dykedvonte]

why do you hate Joshua Graham or Honest Hearts so much?

This DLC and character represents a bigger issue with fandom spaces I have but particularly fallout fandom in general.

Fallout tends to tackle a lot of topics controversial and not. The first two games it’s heavy cause they are the most satirical and direct with how anti-war, nationalism and etc… they are. 3 loses this as it’s very clear once you play or learn about all the games that Todd and a bunch of guys at Bethesda just liked the 50s post apocalyptic aesthetic and refuse to actually critique the ideals of the time period like the earlier titles.

New Vegas is the game that really gets back into it a degree it almost seems like it’s taking too much on. There are things done exceedingly well while other things are done horribly wrong . I’ve made posts about it before and plan to make a big series of posts (it’s a lot of writing) but my biggest gripe is with Honest Hearts and all the gross and white savior esque depictions it has of indigenous peoples. The entirety if FNV does not do the injustices faced by indigenous people correctly on any count. My two biggest complaints are with the Khans and the tribes in Zion but I’ll talk about the former on a different post.

Both characters of Daniel and Joshua are the most accurate depiction of white saviors I’ve seen and I hate how the DLC tries to justify and defend them. The DLC treats Joshua like this man who has repented for his past actions when he is just retracing his steps after his cruelty bit him in the ass. He was one of the worst parts of the Legion and it is all but explicitly stated that if you don’t force him to be non-violent he will turn the tribes of Zion into the legion 2.0. The Dead Horses and the Sorrows are horribly infantilized by both Daniel and Joshua who both use them for self serving purposes guised by religious duty. The White Legs are the horrible stereotype of violent and savage indigenous and I personally think a lot of their interlinking with Ulysses, his hair and Ulysses character in general are distasteful and very telling of how BIPOC or POC where involved.

But outside of the game it’s the weird obsession people have with these characters ideologies and trying to make them seem more interesting/philosophical than they are. Tumblr is an echo chamber and many fans of Fallout are not the people on this site. Many people are not educated in the issues these characters convey and how poorly they do or used these characters as a poor introduction for their takes. Contrary to what a lot of people believe in, fallout has a prediomeny white cis male fanbase. More importantly a large portion of the fanbase is white.

You can joke how FNV made you trans or see the numbers on post/fics or diverse headcanons but these are kiddy numbers compared to the millions that consume the franchise and aren’t in those more aware spaces or don’t engage in the spaces the same way someone like me does/has to. Their views shape a lot more than people realize and it’s exhausting to be in a space where people don’t correct the more subtle yet toxic aspects of it but also adopt them into some weird quirky view point on the characters or issues. Some people don’t realize and some people don’t care.

My main issue is just the idolizing of these sort of thing in this fandom space and people try to acts like a game like fallout whose tagline is “War never changes” and has never had a game not revolve around political or militaristic factions issues isn’t that deep or doesn’t relate to real issues. I think it’s mainly caused by how over powered you can become and how you can strong arm your way past these learning moments as majority of people who play this game do play it as a power fantasy where they can do so as they please (which of course, go ahead it’s fun) but never take in parallels or lessons in the story as if it was just another first person shooter.

Also like another personal gripe is Cazadores spawn like hell whenever I’m there and I have not found a mod that works to mod them out so I have to play Indigenous Racism the DLC while getting jumped by giant wasps WHILE helping Mormons. Like I cannot catch a break.